Early Genesis Interpretations Agreed With Darwin

[GurrenLagann]

I'd like to point out that BOTH Greek and Indian philosophers were familiar with the idea of life (including humans) evolving otr having evolved from a "simpler" state. In regards to the Indian philosophers, IIRC their awareness of the idea of evolution was present THOUSANDS of years before any sort of recognizable Judaism or Hebrew Text.


Also, isn't it funny how anything in the BuyBull can be squared simply by saying that., despite the fact that the text says X, Y and Z with no declaration or hint of intending it as allegory, it doesn't actually mean that literally.

-_-

[AxisMundi]

http://biologos.org/questions/early-interpretations-of-genesis

Given the stark difference between evolution and six-day creation, many people assume that Darwin's theory shook the foundations of the Christian faith. In truth, the literal six-day interpretation of Genesis 1-2 was not the only perspective held by Christians prior to modern science.  St. Augustine (354-430), John Calvin (1509-1564), John Wesley (1703-171), and others supported the idea of Accommodation.  In the Accommodation view, Genesis 1-2 was written in a simple allegorical fashion to make it easy for people of that time to understand.  In fact, Augustine suggested that the 6 days of Genesis 1 describe a single day of creation.  St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) argued that God did not create things in their final state, but created them to have potential to develop as he intended.  The views of these and other Christian leaders are consistent with God creating life by means of evolution.

Introduction
Many people assume that Darwin's theory must have shaken the foundations of the Christian faith because of the stark difference between evolution and the idea of a six-day creation. In truth, the literal six-day interpretation of Genesis 1–2 was not the only perspective espoused by Christian thinkers prior to the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859. The works of many early Christian theologians and philosophers reveal an interpretation of Genesis compatible with Darwin's theory.
Early Christian Thought
Origen, a third-century philosopher and theologian from Alexandria, Egypt—one of the great intellectual centers of the ancient world—provides an example of early Christian thought on creation.
Best known for On First Principles and Against Celsus, Origen presented the main doctrines of Christianity and defended them against pagan accusations. Origen opposed the idea that the creation story should be interpreted as a literal and historical account of how God created the world. There were other voices before Origen who advocated more symbolic interpretations of the creation story. Origen's views were also influential for other early church thinkers who came after him.1
St. Augustine of Hippo, a bishop in North Africa during the early fifth century, was another central figure of the period. Although he is widely known for Confessions, Augustine authored dozens of other works, several of which focus on Genesis 1–2.2 In The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Augustine argues that the first two chapters of Genesis are written to suit the understanding of the people at that time.3
In order to communicate in a way that all people could understand, the creation story was told in a simpler, allegorical fashion. Augustine also believed God created the world with the capacity to develop, a view that is harmonious with biological evolution.4

I've said on here a few times that Genesis was Allegorical. The idea of a 6,000 year old earth and a literal Genesis is absurd on its face. The forbidden fruit is about the fallen state of man, not a literal sin committed by Eve. Silly Christians should do their homework.

Please note that when I say "agrees with Darwin" in the title doesn't mean I specifically believe that, its just the title of the article.

So the earth is indeed older than the sun? Animals all popped into existence at the same time just before, or just after, man (depending on which chapter one reads)? The earth was first covered by water before there was land? And yet life began on this planet on land, and not the sea?

The idea that human beings were incapable of grasping such concepts as billions of years during the time that the bible was written is highly insulting, and shows a certain lack of historical knowledge. We speak of people who were far more advanced in science, architecture, engineering, medicine, philosophy, metallurgy, navigation, mathematics et cetera ad nauseam than people were during the medieval ages a thousand years later. All thanks to the quashing of science and the scientific principles conducted by the Church.

Genesis was written by people who thought what was written was factual. These opinions were then later challenged, at times by church leaders themselves, in an effort to reconcile their bible with our growing (and in many cases rediscovered) understanding about our world.

And Darwin never set out to challenge the Creation Myth, nor does his work form the only argument for evolution. He is simply an easy target for those who have nothing to challenge the Evolution Theory other than their faith in their scriptures. Scripture, mind you, that are easily disproved.

And that is ignoring the little fact that Darwin proposed a hypothesis concerning Evolution, and not Abiogensis, a different scientific discipline.

[Plu]

Humans have been breeding dogs, cattle and food for thousands of years. We knew. We've known for a long time.

[AxisMundi]

Oh, BTW...

The 6,000 year old earth thing is taken from counting the unbroken lineage from Adam to Abraham as found in the bible, not from Genesis.

Also, Genesis is an attempt to make Jehovah out to be THE god who created everything, to create the ultimate authority in Jehovah and his laws. Genesis doesn't work out as allegory, as it destroys any need to worship Jehovah, or follow Abrahamic laws, for the self-preservation of one's "immortal soul".

[VaasMontenegro]

Creationists are the people who piss me off the most, because every time we show them PROOF that the Earth was created in a long process over BILLIONS of years, with no input from a supernatural source whatsoever, they just ignore it and pretend they never heard it.

The Earth formed around the Sun as rock and gas were pulled together by gravity and molded into a sphere at which point the rock at the center melted to form the core. The planet took its complete spherical form around 4.5 Billion years ago, and from there, and after a major impact from a moon-sized body, an atmosphere formed and the geology of the Earth began to take form. 2 Billion years ago, the first signs of  life formed and now, 2 Billion years later, here we are. There is irrefutable evidence to prove this and ongoing research to better understand the process and gain a fuller picture, but we still understand how the earth formed and how life came to be. However, there is not a single shread of evidence to support Creationism or any of it's implications.

If creationist actually did their research and accepted the proof, they would undoubtfully see that Genesis is bullshit. As is God, for that matter.

[GurrenLagann]

Creationists are the people who piss me off the most, because every time we show them PROOF that the Earth was created in a long process over BILLIONS of years, with no input from a supernatural source whatsoever, they just ignore it and pretend they never heard it.

Bone to pick here. Bit of haphazard use of the word "proof". 'Tis evidence which is used as an indicator of probable, not final, truth. ;)

The Earth formed around the Sun as rock and gas were pulled together by gravity and molded into a sphere at which point the rock at the center melted to form the core. The planet took its complete spherical form around 4.5 Billion years ago, and from there, and after a major impact from a moon-sized body, an atmosphere formed and the geology of the Earth began to take form. 2 Billion years ago, the first signs of  life formed and now, 2 Billion years later, here we are. There is irrefutable evidence to prove this and ongoing research to better understand the process and gain a fuller picture, but we still understand how the earth formed and how life came to be. However, there is not a single shread of evidence to support Creationism or any of it's implications.

If creationist actually did their research and accepted the proof, they would undoubtfully see that Genesis is bullshit. As is God, for that matter.

No evidence is irrefutable. Science is dynamic. Newton's Laws and Cosmological conclusions could've been labelled "irrefutable", but the along comes Laplace a century later improving and fixing Newton's models of the Solar System.

And i would hesitate against merely saying all Creationists just need to "do research" and "accept the proof", as it implies all of them are engaging in willfull rejection, when much of the time they simply aren't convinced. To borrow from AronRa: Remember the people you are dialoging with are potential allies, whom if convinced can prove invaluable at convincing others they once held similar views with.

[DigitalBot]

Genesis 1-2 was written in a simple allegorical fashion to make it easy for people of that time to understand.

Does it mean that God is just an allegory?

[bennyboy]

Genesis 1-2 was written in a simple allegorical fashion to make it easy for people of that time to understand.

Does it mean that God is just an allegory?

Look to pagan gods, and then look at the Biblical God as a kind of archetypal Man, and I think you're probably pretty close, actually.

[aitm]

I would still interject that for a thousand years, the vast vast majority of christians did indeed believe the babble to be literal truth. Its not called the dark ages fer nuttin. I get frustrated when I try to point out that the great philosophers lived 350-400 years before the idiocy of the new testament and all that crap, but believers never get the concept that religion dumbed down the populace to pre-historic cavemen.

[Plu]

It always reminds me of this chart:

[Brian37]

http://biologos.org/questions/early-interpretations-of-genesis

Given the stark difference between evolution and six-day creation, many people assume that Darwin's theory shook the foundations of the Christian faith. In truth, the literal six-day interpretation of Genesis 1-2 was not the only perspective held by Christians prior to modern science.  St. Augustine (354-430), John Calvin (1509-1564), John Wesley (1703-171), and others supported the idea of Accommodation.  In the Accommodation view, Genesis 1-2 was written in a simple allegorical fashion to make it easy for people of that time to understand.  In fact, Augustine suggested that the 6 days of Genesis 1 describe a single day of creation.  St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) argued that God did not create things in their final state, but created them to have potential to develop as he intended.  The views of these and other Christian leaders are consistent with God creating life by means of evolution.

Introduction
Many people assume that Darwin's theory must have shaken the foundations of the Christian faith because of the stark difference between evolution and the idea of a six-day creation. In truth, the literal six-day interpretation of Genesis 1–2 was not the only perspective espoused by Christian thinkers prior to the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859. The works of many early Christian theologians and philosophers reveal an interpretation of Genesis compatible with Darwin's theory.
Early Christian Thought
Origen, a third-century philosopher and theologian from Alexandria, Egypt—one of the great intellectual centers of the ancient world—provides an example of early Christian thought on creation.
Best known for On First Principles and Against Celsus, Origen presented the main doctrines of Christianity and defended them against pagan accusations. Origen opposed the idea that the creation story should be interpreted as a literal and historical account of how God created the world. There were other voices before Origen who advocated more symbolic interpretations of the creation story. Origen's views were also influential for other early church thinkers who came after him.1
St. Augustine of Hippo, a bishop in North Africa during the early fifth century, was another central figure of the period. Although he is widely known for Confessions, Augustine authored dozens of other works, several of which focus on Genesis 1–2.2 In The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Augustine argues that the first two chapters of Genesis are written to suit the understanding of the people at that time.3
In order to communicate in a way that all people could understand, the creation story was told in a simpler, allegorical fashion. Augustine also believed God created the world with the capacity to develop, a view that is harmonious with biological evolution.4

I've said on here a few times that Genesis was Allegorical. The idea of a 6,000 year old earth and a literal Genesis is absurd on its face. The forbidden fruit is about the fallen state of man, not a literal sin committed by Eve. Silly Christians should do their homework.

Please note that when I say "agrees with Darwin" in the title doesn't mean I specifically believe that, its just the title of the article.

Aquinus didn't know shit. That would be like the Egyptians pointing at the sun and saying "that is the sun", yea, doesn't mean they knew what the fuck they were looking at.

Muslims have tried this bullshit tactic too. "This Koran vs says" so therefore Allah picks the sex of the baby. "This Koran vs says the skies turn red" so since scientists have pictures of a red nebula.

IT IS THE SAME SHIT

And this "fallen state" vs "sin" is just more bullshit goal post moving in retrospect when they know they are pulling this crap out of a fucking comic book.

The bible is not a science textbook and this "potential for life" is also again, retrofiting after the fact, to try to remain relevant. The bible is a fucking comic book and complete myth. It never was and never will be a science textbook.

[Davka]

The idea that human beings were incapable of grasping such concepts as billions of years during the time that the bible was written is highly insulting, and shows a certain lack of historical knowledge. We speak of people who were far more advanced in science, architecture, engineering, medicine, philosophy, metallurgy, navigation, mathematics et cetera ad nauseam than people were during the medieval ages a thousand years later. All thanks to the quashing of science and the scientific principles conducted by the Church.

This is nonsense. The stories in the OT Bible were told by nomadic goat-herders, embellished and passed down over centuries before finally being written down. Claiming that Hebrew tribes were more scientifically advanced than medieval Europeans is simply wrong. Both groups were equally ignorant and superstitious.

Genesis was written by people who thought what was written was factual.

On what do you base this bald assertion?

And Darwin never set out to challenge the Creation Myth, nor does his work form the only argument for evolution. He is simply an easy target for those who have nothing to challenge the Evolution Theory other than their faith in their scriptures. Scripture, mind you, that are easily disproved.

And that is ignoring the little fact that Darwin proposed a hypothesis concerning Evolution, and not Abiogensis, a different scientific discipline.

The problem that Christians have with Darwin remains the same regardless of the distinction between evolution and abiogenesis. If Homo Sapiens and apes evolved from a common ancestor, then humans are no longer "special." We're not God's Favorite, we're just another animal - which means that Biblical concepts such as "having dominion over the animals" are meaningless.

Darwin's theory is every bit as unsettling as that of Copernicus 4 centuries earlier, and for the same reason: it removes Homo Sapiens from their imaginary throne at the center of the Universe. The average idiot does not like to be reminded of her own insignificance in the Cosmic scheme of things.

[Sleeper]

The writers of the gospels seemed to think they were literal because of the genealogies at the beginnings of Matthew and Luke.

When I was a Christian I used to argue that Genesis taught evolution...

The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind... And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so...

Pretty thin and quite a long reach, but it could vaguely be done.

[Hydra009]

The 6,000 year old earth thing is taken from counting the unbroken lineage from Adam to Abraham as found in the bible, not from Genesis

This one?  Or this one?   :-k

Either way, I think we can safely say that the methodology of dating the Earth by way of tales where people lived to be hundreds of years old is slightly suspect.

[GurrenLagann]

Some of you of perpetrating some well-known myths here:

It always reminds me of this chart:

[ Image ]

This is very misleading. It ignores the fact that the Muslim Golden Age occurred during this time span, during which there were VERY significant developments in Mathematics, Astronomy and [especially] Medicine. It is entirely because of some great thinkers in the Middle East (Baghdad) that we even have translations of ancient Greek thinkers (namely Aristotle) at all. And the term "Dark Ages" is of French origin and is very much too leading.

Darwin's theory is every bit as unsettling as that of Copernicus 4 centuries earlier, and for the same reason: it removes Homo Sapiens from their imaginary throne at the center of the Universe. The average idiot does not like to be reminded of her own insignificance in the Cosmic scheme of things.

This is one of THE biggest myths regarding Science and Religion. Anti-Heliocentricity was not about placing humans at the center of the Universe in an exhalted way. As you may know, Aristotle taught that heavier things fall faster than lighter things. Aristotle also taught that heavenly bodies were made of a 5th, lighter element he called "aether". Hence Earth, being at the center, was because it had all of the heavy elements. The religious took this to infer the uncleanliness of the Earth. Also, some of the earliest, biggest supporters of Darwinian evolution were clergymen. Some of their support came from the reasoning that a Creator who could make living being who could develop into greater/more complex living being was a greater Creator than one who simply made species-static creatures.

I recommend reading a book called "Galileo Goes to Jail". Goes over and corrects many myths regarding the relationship between Science and Religion, from Darwin's suppose conversion to Christianity on his deathbed, to the Galileo business. Fun read. :)